Interesting trend in monster trucks

[mab_man20]

I find it very interesting that the "newest" thing for T-Maxxes is the new "buggy" style chassis which puts the diffs above the chassis. The reason that im starting a thread is because prior to the t-maxx, most gas monster trucks were based on buggies. You had the USA-1 based on the infernos and ofna came out with one (cant remeber the name).

It seems that the newest thing does nothing but get us right back were we were prior to the t-maxx.


Its also time for monster truck classes at major races (not just T-maxx races).
You can have to types:
"T-Maxx clone"-anything with the diffs below the chassis.
"Buggy."- just about anything else with big tires.

what do you think?

[k_sw31]

the titan has diff's below the chassis.

[krisI.925]

the titan is kinda of like both of them combined. But i have yet to see a real nitro monster truck. The madforce is pretty close but it stall doesnt seem all that much like a real monster. I got a TXT1 and thats about as real as it gets. The thing goes like 8mph right now but its still a blast to drive.

[JordanG]

Get a super rooster and some mod motors and speed that thing up! Txt-1's are cool, solid axle monster trucks rule, how many 1:1 scale indy suspension MT's do you know of?

[YoSystmSucks]

Kyosho Dodge Ram had the diffs below the chassis before the T-maxx, so the T-maxx istelf is a clone...

[WheelNut]

Exepct besides that the similairities between the kyosho and the T-maxx end pretty much right there. The T-maxx I would say is the most original design in RC I've seen (with in a few years between its release, I dont knwo much about those old school truck, 1980 etc.)

[Keyz28]

YoSys funny you and I are the only two who noticed the maxx is a clone. After all the screaming at the traxxas board about the "maxx started it all the rest are copies" I felt the need to tell them about the kyosho, no one replied , funny. The similarities are more than most will admit. The kyosho had reverse and I think a 2 speed if I'm right.

[mab_man20]

I have the reveiw of the Kyosho Baja beetle (the ram was just a different body style on the same car released a little later) from the february 1997 issue of RCCA. It is praised for being a gas truck with reverse, but thats about it. The QRC (quick reverse clutch) is the heart of the car and allows the truck to go into reverse via a clutch and pin mechanism. I want to stress that it used a two channel radio, not a three channel like the t-maxx. The Beetle does not have breaks, it only has forward and reverse. To quote the artical "You will want to refrain from throwing in an evil .12 O.S. or a comparable engine in the Baja Beetle. The QRC was not designed to handle that kind of raw power."

The only things that the Beetle and the T-maxx have in common is that they are gas and go in reverse (many cars have had the tranny through the chassis, making it impossible to know if the design fof the t-maxx was actually taken from the Beetle). The T-maxx uses a completely different design to get the truck to back up. As you all know it uses a three channel system, which allows for forward, brake, and reverse. Also the t-maxx can go full speed in both directions (the kyosho had an extra gear for reverse, increasing the drive ratio and making it slower in reverse). The t-maxx was built to be fast and driven really hard, and it does both exceptionally well, hense all the new racing classes built up around it.

Saying the t-maxx was a clone of the Baja Beetle is absurd. Just because it has reverse means nothing. A clone is something of similar design, not results. The only feature you can even consider a copy is the placement of the diffs and drive axles, but no one can prove that the traxxas engineers copied kyosho or simply found independantly that that diff placement worked the best.


YoSystmSucks: if you are going to say that something is a clone, you can at least bring up the first version of the car, not one that came later. Since the Beetle came out kyosho has made two more bodies for the QRC chassis, the ram and "snakebite."

If anyone still disagrees with me let me know and we will continue to debate it.

[rusty89]

does it madder if its a real monster truck as long as its a good and with very good durabilty .

along with being fun to drive.

I think not.

[Crashmaxx]

I don't think you really want a 1/10 scale monster truck. If you scale down the performence, it would go a top speed of 4.5mph and would not be able to turn without falling over at more then 3mph. So do you really want that sucky truck? Or a nice independent suspension truck.

Also, what makes it a monster truck is the size, not the setup. This is proven because real monster trucks are now getting independent suspension.

[mab_man20]

I think the new HPI savage does a little better job of looking like a real monster truck than most trucks in the past. The twin ladder chassis makes for an increadibly strong backbone and also looks much better than just a flat slab of aluminum.

Crashmaxx: Your right, a scale monster truck would tip over if you even touched the steering while going more than half throttle. They would also be unstable over jumps. Who wants to go turn their truck back over everytime they go over a jump?

[JordanG]

Real monster trucks arnt getting independent suspension, how long did it take you to wake up from that dream? :confused:

There is ONE ifs MT that i know of, its 2wd, and it blows, solid axles are used because they are strong and can stand up to the pressure exerted on them by a full size MT.

So, if im going to call my truck a monster truck, id like to say it has at least one thing in common with a full size monster truck...solid axles...tire size....four link suspension...anything...the maxx has *nothing* in common with full scale MT's other than 4wd.

Clod tires are 6.6" tall...scale them bad boys up...here..ill help...6.6"x10= 66"...hmm....full scale monster trucks are running 66" terras with four link suspension and solid axles...cant deny that clods/juggs don't have more claim to the "monster truck" term than the maxx's...

Not trying to start a flame war, so dont flame me, just stating my views on the topic...:)

[rusty89]

theres a reason r/c has nothing to do with real monster.

[JordanG]

The reason current r/cs dont have anything to do with real monsters is because no one really cares what the truck looks like, as long as its "all shiny and fast"...

The 80's were my favorite time frame of r/cs, back when realism mattered, hey....no bad intentions....i guess i just prefer realism....

[Crashmaxx]

Whatever then, you can keep you poor handling truck. I would rather have something fun to drive then an exact model that drives.

And I know that indipendent suspension is crap on a real MT cause it is too weak, but one still exists.

And besides, what do you think we should call them if they are not MTs? Should we come up with a new name for em and reserve MT for your dream non-exsistant truck? Come up with a better name and I will use it and you can wait for them to build a replica of a real MT so there would be a real RC MT.

I'm not trying to flame, just have no clue what else to call em and put out my opinion.

[Grant Tokumi]

Yup, I agree with Crashmaxx. I would rather have something fun to drive than an exact model that drives. I personally feel this hobby is about building something that is fast, durable, and exciting. To intentionally choose to "sacrafice" performance for pure scale traits is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. Look at full scale for guidance, modify as required to achive better proformance in a scale version. Independent suspension in rc cars is one of those mods. I don't think there is any rc car on the market that was aimed at 100% pure scale of the 1:1 vehicle.

[mab_man20]

Yes the t-maxx is not a true scale MT, 99% of R/C trucks resemble a touring car more than a MT. That 1% is all the the solid axles (clod, electric usa-1, Jugg, TX-1?). There are scale truck pulling and curcuits for true truckers, but the t-maxx goes at it on the same track that we run our stadium trucks and buggies (8th and 10th) and they run very well. That is the difference, the t-maxx is not supposed to be a MT its a truck with big wheels which just happens to go over just about anything in its path, and does it very quickly.

[JordanG]

Well, as a general rule, stadium trucks/buggies/truggies (t/emaxxs) are generally faster than monster trucks....

Although...to compare the speed of the emaxx to the speed of a stock clod is wrong. Main reason being, the maxx is running on 14.4Vs, so, of course it will be faster than a truck on 7.2V. The clod chassis is dated because it was made in 87...there are a lot of clods out there that can keep up with the maxx's.

Some of you seem to think that solid axle = no performance. There are plenty of people who race solid axle monster trucks, very competiviely i might add as well...

As for that statement about tmaxxs going over anything, i doubt there are many tmaxxs that could follow a clod when the terrain gets rough, that indy suspension might give you better handling over bumps and in the corners, but it also takes away offroad prowess.

This is a pretty good discussion... :)

[mab_man20]

Over the real rough stuff the clod does have the advantage, but i still think that it would take a very very hopped up clod to keep up with a stock t-maxx (with a few tuning adjustments like oil, springs, etc.) on a standard off-road track.

The Clod is not necessarily running off of 7.2V. I know a lot of people who have wired clods in series to get 14.4V. The real advantage comes from 2 550's compaired to 2 540's.

[JordanG]

If you have link clearance you can put 550's on a clod, i know some people have wired clods to 14.4v, but in general, the clod is wired in 7.2 and the maxx is 14.4V. :)

[WheelNut]

Jordan-All you have to do to make a E-maxx(definately not a T-maxx, not good on the rocks, and it wouldnt be a fair compairison anyways) good on the rocks is add in a spool, rear probably. Many Clods need this to, adn it help immensely, but idependantly suspended mosters do very well in that kind of stuff. My 4x4 pede, which articulates 8''and has a locked rear diff, does very well over obstacles. The maxx can articulate 3-4'' more and has more traction and torque also.

Basically the maxx is good all around. But in the really really extreme stuff where 90 degrees of artic is needed the maxx might not follow the clod.

Those are all the arguments I can think of right now.

BTW-this is Traxxaskid from rcmt

[JordanG]

was simply stating that clods/juggernauts/txt1s are more of a true r/c monster truck that maxx's, deep down inside we all know this, regardless of whether we want to admit it or not.

Anyways...after reading this thread over, i wonder why we argue so much about toys, i really don't care anymore, have fun with your maxx and ill have fun with my clods :)

[Grant Tokumi]

was simply stating that clods/juggernauts/txt1s are more of a true r/c monster truck that maxx's, deep down inside we all know this, regardless of whether we want to admit it or not.


What I feel deep down inside is that people are knocking independent suspension or MAXXs because of jealousy of its popularity, whether they want to admit it or not. My own justification for this is that no one ever discredited the USA-1 as a MT back when it was only the USA-1 and the clod. MAXXs came out, then you saw it all over the place, then someone started saying solid axles are the only "true MTs" to insult MAXX owners in my opinion, then people jumped on board. What defines a true MT? Who cares? Its part of the anti-MAXX campaign originated by good ol jeepinator. Maybe its just me. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, lost cause and being a SOB. I'll stop that now. :)


Some of you seem to think that solid axle = no performance. There are plenty of people who race solid axle monster trucks, very competiviely i might add as well...

You know. I used to think solid axle = no performance until I read your statement. Now I'm not so sure. I just took it for granted I guess. Good point. Maybe independenet suspension doesn't matter as much in MT racing performance after all. MTs are slugs in any form, so maybe suspension type doesn't make that much a difference. Solid axles have more unsprung weight though if that affects performance....

I've recently sucessfully installed 550 motors in my clod with EVX and 12 cells. Motors are tight fit, but it fits. And MAN, that clod flies now. Smart braking is not so good though. Its so strong it makes the truck endo.

And to get back on topic. I personally feel the trend MTs will take us is into popularity of even larger scale vehicles. Buggies with huge engines. Faster, stronger.

[mab_man20]

Originally posted by Grant Tokumi


And to get back on topic. I personally feel the trend MTs will take us is into popularity of even larger scale vehicles. Buggies with huge engines. Faster, stronger.

Interesting idea.

Who thinks big trucks (solid or independant suspension) will be the next big class (like touring cars has/had become)?

Solid axle vs. Ind Suspension is like arguing shaft vs belts. With a good design and in skilled hands IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

:p

[WheelNut]

It could be, the touring car was also created as a basher, but then evolved into a racer. This seems to be happening to the maxx.

[JordanG]

There arnt too many r/c's that rc'ers wont race...if it has wheels...you know the rest :)

[mab_man20]

Everyone will race against someone, but actually a very small percentage of people in the hobby go to an organized track and race. For example: approximately 9% of Factory team tc3's (which is a race bread car ready to win out of the box) ever see a track.

[JordanG]

and who told you that?

[mab_man20]

It is not an exact figure by any means, but it gets the point across that racing radio control cars is only a small part of the hobby. The success of RTR is proof of that.

[JordanG]

the success of rtr means that alot of people are getting into the hobby and prefer to plug and play without building...

Futhermore, you cant base that 9% AE "fact" on the amount of rtr's sold, it's complelty irrevalant, you have no way of knowing how many tc3 owners actually race there cars....

[mab_man20]

I said in my last post that the number does not matter, it is simply the fact that its a small one.

Think about it this way:

How many people have radio control cars?

How many of those people know of a track close with in a distance that they will drive?
(take a look in any track directory and you will find that there are very few tracks per square mile in the U.S. Until 3 years ago there was only 1 track with an hours drive of chicago, and there are 9 million people in chicago.)

Is that track on or off-road? Do they have a car they can run on that track?

Do they care enough to actually go to that track on a regular basis?

When you add all this up, the last number is a lot smaller than the first one. Again i heard 9%, but as you said, it is impossible to verify that number.